Firearms Design and Engineering

[Monac]

OK, i think the second "also' in the sentence Johnm1 quotes from the Chiccones book ("The .32 S.A. also sported a new rebounding hammer, an important engineering feature shared with the much larger .44 New Model 3 single action, also introduced in 1878") speaks volumes. Maybe the rebounding single-action hammer and the DA trigger mechanism were not sequential developments like I assumed, but nearly simultaneous ones. That would explain why the rebound was not included in the DA pistol. I would still wonder why they never put it into the Model 1878 DA revolvers, but that seems like more of a manufacturing decision than a design one. After all, S&W had no problem putting a rebounding hammer in the 38 Perfected Model or any of their solid frame revolvers.

I have never owned a S&W Model 1878 DA revolver in the 44 frame size. But I did have a copy of one, the 455 caliber version made in Spain for the British Army in the First World War. (Mine was an Orbea.) I was a bit amused to note it had no provision for holding the cylinder in place except when the hammer was cocked. They just left off something they found too difficult to make. But I am pretty darn certain it had a rebounding hammer! It is even funnier to me they gave the gun something that S&W didn't.

PS - Of course, the real person to ask about this is Driftwood Johnson. He might very well actually know, instead of all this implied meaning and speculation.

 

[Johnm1]

As I read his 2019 post during one of nis eloquent disertations on a Large Frame 44 Double action he surmised the following. (The 38 Double Action (as well as the 32 Double Action) use the same action.)

"As I have said, the hammer on these double action Top Breaks does not rebound. Once it falls it stays there. The New Model Number Three had a rebounding hammer because the geometry of the trigger spring wedged the hammer back slightly after a shot was fired. There is no room underneath the hammer with this model to do that. At least that is my guess. That is why these revolvers did not have a rebounding hammer.".

 

[Johnm1]

After all, S&W had no problem putting a rebounding hammer in the 38 Perfected Model or any of their solid frame revolvers.

The Perfected model was the last top break S&W produced and it was coincidental to the production of the first hand ejector. Chiccone describes it as follows:

The Perfected was a true hybrid, using the internal workings of the modern .32 Hand Ejector double action along with the fast reloading top-break barrel of the .38 Double Action.

The action of the perfected models are very similar to a modern double action S&W and very different than the double actions we are discussing.

I wonder if the half cock notch found on the single actions, or the shape/surface of the trigger required to operate the half cock is incompatible with the older double action?

I haven't taken the new 32 Single Action apart because, well, it doesn't need to be taken apart. I may have to evaluate that this weekend as the answer to the question may be found in seeing the parts on the table next to each other. It'd be nice if there was an animation of the single action. The exploded diagram in the doesn't allow a dunce like me to understand how the trigger actuates the hammer rebound.

 

[jmorris]

I would need the diagram!

I can play a horn (commonly called a French Horn) at a pretty high level.

Perfect example, I could get by without the diagram but I couldn’t play any musical instrument, without dogs howling all around. Just different skill sets, different people have.

 

[AJumbo]

Very good thread. I just want to float it out there that while S&W engineers were developing the rebounding hammer, they were measuring time by looking at their pocket watches. Open the back of one of those once, and marvel at what was possible back in the day.

 

[Johnm1]

Very good thread. I just want to float it out there that while S&W engineers were developing the rebounding hammer, they were measuring time by looking at their pocket watches. Open the back of one of those once, and marvel at what was possible back in the day.

Very good point.